Talk:Tuvan People's Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Given that "Tannu Tuva" is far more common in English, why not use that instead of the completely obscure "Tuvinian People's Republic" (which I've never even heard of before)? Stan 04:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any information about the area formerly known as Tannu Tuva in 2005? Would be an interesting addition to the article...


Neither in the article 'Tannu Uriankhai' nor in this article about the republic here, which is explicitly named 'Tuvinian People's Republic', I found any note about the tuvinian people, not even a link. Can somebody shed light on them? Are they mongols or turks now? And what about the history of the land and the people called 'Uriankhai' from the Khanate of Ghengis on? Truchses 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried Tuvans? That seems to be the link you are looking for... Also, the main article about the modern republic is located at Tuva. Let me know if you need anything else.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tuvan Stamps[edit]

I read somewhere that Tuvan stamps are among the few which are more valuable used than unfranked. Is this correct (and are there any others?) Jackiespeel 18:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct name?[edit]

Is this the correct name for the article? The English adjective form for Tuva is usually "Tuvan" (cf. Tuvan language, Tuvans). Tuvinian is certianly used some but Tuvan seems to be more common. (Check the external links list at Tuva for some examples.) Should the article be at Tuvan People's Republic or People's Republic of Tuva then? — AjaxSmack 07:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I trust this name is the one that's been used in English language academic literature on the subject (as a quick search in Google Books would attest). Such a discrepancy is nothing unusual, by the way (cf. Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and Belarus). "Tuvan People's Republic" or "People's Republic of (Tannu) Tuva" are used as well, although they do not seem to be as common. In any case, you might want to ask around here to clear this up. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Good question. Let me look up in my sources... --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
While you are at it, could you also check Tuva Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

From the articles in The Tuvan Manual:

  • Tuvan People's Republic, Tuvan ASSR - Tuva by Michael Underdown
  • Tannu-Tuvinian People's Republic & Tuvinian People's Republic, Tuvinian ASSR & Tuvan ASSR - From The Great Soviet Encyclopedia translated by William Dougherty
  • Tuvan People's Republic - The Tuvans by L.P. Potapov (a translation I think by Potapov of a chapter in Narody Sibiri 1956

Note there was also a Tuvan Autonomous Oblast before it became an ASSR. So in The Tuvan Manual I couldn't find any 'of Tuva' usage and the adjective Tuvan vs. Tuvinian seems variable. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hate when this happens :( Anyway, my suggestion would be to submit a move request to "Tuvan" for all three articles (for consistency sake) and create a network of redirects for other uses.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Additional note: The translation of Otto Maenchen-Helfen's Journey to Tuva uses Tuvan People's Republic. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, let's do it...


The info box states that the Tuvan Republic has a surface area of 170,500 km² (about the size of Florida, Surinam). However, if the scale on the map is right, Tuva can be contained by a rectangle approximately 300x200 km wide, or 60,000 km² (about the size of Latvia). So one or both (scale, area) appear to be wrong. Correction with a reliable source seems desirable to me.

Junuxx (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The 170,500 km² area number seems to have been taken from the article about the modern Tuva Republic. I can't say much about whether the scale of the map is correct or not, but according to the reference book I have (administrative and territorial division of the Russian SFSR as of July 1, 1945), the area of the Tuvan Autonomous Oblast was 192,100 km². To the best of my knowledge, there were no changes to the territory of Tuva between its annexation in November 1944 and July 1945 (the date as of which my reference book is current). Don't know if this helps you any, but I'll be more than happy to add my book to the list of references (and the 170,500 number definitely needs to be taken down). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:05, December 11, 2008 (UTC) 15:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I made an attempt at a slightly better estimate by counting pixels using this map and scale [1]. The result was 136,000 km² [2]. While the method is not very accurate, I don't think it's more than 10% off either. It's peculiar though how this doesn't match any of the official figures we have here. Junuxx (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
An online edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia from the 1970s says 170,500 square km [3]. The official website of the legislature of modern Tuva gives an area of 171,300 square km [4]. --Cam (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Right. Then I guess the scale is way off on both the map in the article and the encarta map... Junuxx (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of appearing a complete ignoramus, shouldn't the pixel-based calculations also take the curvature of the Earth's surface into account?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:05, December 12, 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct, and this issue can make the pixel technique quite unreliable on Mercator projections, such as Google Maps. However, the Encarta map I used is based on Lambert equal area projection, which as the name implies correctly represents area. For a wild guess on my part, could it be possible that the 1945 book uses versts, or confuses them with kilometers? - Junuxx (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the refresher on the map projections. As for the versts, I highly doubt it. Russia switched to the metric system in the 1920s, so by 1945 it's been quite a while (although it's possible that Tuva continued to use the old Russian system of measurements—I just don't know). In any case, the conversions from square versts to square kilometers, or vice versa, don't come anywhere close the numbers we are reviewing.
I, however, did some further research, and got the results I can't quite explain. As mentioned above, the 1945 reference book shows the area of the Tuvan Autonomous Oblast as 192,100 km². The 1947 "Administrative divisions of the USSR book" (which covers the administrative divisions of the RSFSR), however, shows the area of 171,300 km² (as of January 1). The 1987 edition of the same book shows the area of 170,500 km²—same as the 2002 Census data. While I can imagine how the difference between 171,300 and 170,500 km² can be explained by improved measurements or border fluctuations due to natural reasons (river beds shifting, etc.), I do not understand why the number went down from 192,100 to 171,300 in 1.5 years. To the best of my knowledge, there had been no changes to the Tuva's territory to account for such a large shift. And, of course, none of it explains the mystery with the map (although the simplest explanation would seem to be that the map's scale is screwed up). Any more thoughts?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:01, December 15, 2008 (UTC)

Official data for every Russian Federation subject are here, this is the Russian Federation Landuse National Report 2007 (issued by Federal Cadastral Agency), data are 2008-01-01 in thousands ha (p.190) 16860.4 or 168,604 sq km. It is a very relevant document, I guess (the same are value was since 2005, as 2005 - 2007 report are online).

Here is Tuva (and every district) area in ha 16860357.

Geographic Atlas of USSR (1951) - 171,300 sq km

Area data were precised after accurate topo maps were created as boundaries mostly are watershed lines in mountaineous (sometimes - high mointaineous) regions. So boundary with Russia neigbours was precised and with Mongolia too. It was an territory exchange with Mongolia (in 1950-s? or 60-s? I don't remember just now).Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

When you say that more accurate topomaps allowed for more precise area calculations, what period do you mean? 1940s or more recent? Is this why the reported area dropped from 192,100 to 171,300 in 1945–1947? Also, as far as the maps Junuxx cited above, do you think there's anything wrong with them? Thanks much!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:06, December 15, 2008 (UTC)
More accurate maps creation started in WW2 period. Coordinate system 1942 was implemented. It was the first geodetic network (160,000 greodetic reference points) adjustment from Baltic to Pacific, Soviet geodesy got the accurate reference grid. It has mentioned in literature (Ivan Yefremov? - I don't remember). It was a war theater preparation (thus covered Mongolia too). The levellings vere made thru the USSR territory, so topography elevations were not from atm. pressure measurements, but from the conventional geodesy geometric measurements. The 1942 coordinate system was unchanged till 1995 when 1995 coordinate system was established using satellite measurements.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if it's possible that the figures from the cadastral agency are only for land? Maybe the 171,300 sq km figure includes water. --Cam (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Here categories of land: agricultural lands 3164783 ha; settlements 43550 ha; industry 16154; nature protected 655092; federal forest 10874540; federal waters 96308; reserve lands 2009930
Here (p.193) land use(thous. ha): agriculture 3899.3; forests(federal) 8667.2; forests(not federal)453.5; waters 228.0; biult-up 18.9; roads 28.9; swamps 1026.4; devastated lands 2.3; other 2535.9.07:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --Cam (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I think there were some ambiguities about the border with Mongolia that were only cleared up in the 1950s. I guess this might influence the correct value for the area size. Yaan (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Just now it was impossible for me to find a map of Mongolia/Tuva before the boundaries were precised using more accurate maps (before Tuva was annexed). I hope it will be possible in future, as this kind of map wll be useful for the article and to decide about Tuvan territory losses.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe try Image:Mongolia1932.jpg this one, with Mongolian POV? There is also a big map of Tannu-Urianhai from around 1907 I guess in Walter Heissig et al, Mongolische Ortsnamen II, Stuttgart 1978. Maybe this second map gets digitized one day, too. Yaan (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I know this map (1932). If you compare this Mongolia map with recent one you will notice a territorial claims (Southern Tuva, South of Tannu-Ola range is depicted Mongolian). But for Wiki it would be interesting to have latinizied version of it. If we cannot publish the 1907 map we can use it: to combine recent boundaries and from 1907. Is it possible? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Problem is not copyright, but that the book is in the library, and not for lending. And then it's one of those manuscript maps - one could try to extract the geographical features, but it's all written in Mongolian and I am afraid my Mongolian is not good enough to understand or even properly romanize the description of the border markers (it's alrady bad enough for the 1932 map) - plus these descriptions might not be of so big use anyway, since the toponymics may be hard to compare with the toponymics on a modern map. Actually, maybe I could try to produce some copies, but only after christmas.
I guess one could also ask the State Library in Berlin to make a scan from the original. They probably want money and some scientific excuse, but at least such a scan might be of higher quality than a copy of a black/white faksimile. Yaan (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Professional scan would be better. When I can not scan a document I make a digital photo, but central projection and lens distorsions... conventional scan is the best. Merry Xmas! In my country Xmas is 7 Jan.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've found the official 1918-1919 Russian villages survey (issued 1921) where are the adm.divisions data for Uryankhaisky Kray:

  • Kemchiksky rayon:24,100 sq.versta = 27,426 sq km
  • Malo-Yeniseysky rayon:49,500 sq.versta=56,332 sq km
  • Podkhrebtinsky rayon:8,750 sq.versta=9,958 sq km
  • Tochzhinsky rayon:45,650 sq.versta=51,951 sq km
  • Turano-Uyuksky rayon:4,800 sq.versta=5,463 sq km
  • Central rayon:6,500 sq.versta=7397 sq km
  • Chakul'-Shagonarsky rayon:5,500 sq.versta=6259 sq km

Total: 144,800 sq.versta=164,785 sq km

I have found the Russian map of Syberia 1914 (just after Tuva annexed) and small scale Soviet map of 1927. The territory of Tuva was defined by the Yenisey watershed, so Darkhad Valley and vicinity included, but North Uvs-Nuur Hollow excluded. At 1941 map (I have it at home), 3 years before the annexation, Tuva had actual boundaries shape (generally) - Darkhad out, Nothern Uvs-Nuur in.

I will try to transform 1914 map in some usual projection (from Pulkovo coordinates system) and compare with actual boundaries as I want be sure the watershed edge was not shifted and to compute an area balance.

Russian-Tuva boundary before 1921 was in two spots different from actual. So I hope Yaan's map will be very useful in this job. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


blue line Uryankhay boundary (1914)
red line Tuva Autonomous Oblast boundary(1953)
  • 1. This map shows the Uryankhay Kray territory as it has to be according modern accurate DEM. This boundary idea was that all upper Yenisey watershed basin belongs to Uryankhay. This idea was based on the Shokalsky Map of the Russian Empire 1914 and 1916 Russian Empire map. Approx. Uryankhay area is 166 thous.
  • 2.Soviet map approx.1927 shows the same territory but for the Tuvan Peoples Republic (even west coast of Khovsgol lake is Tuvan!), but upper Us river valley (the Uryankhay "peninsula" at the NW boundary) was lost. So we can be sure the Uryankhay was transformed to the Tuvan Peoples Republic with upper Us valley loss (approx. 2,600 sq. km). So Tuvan Peoples Republic (1927) area was approx. 163
  • 3. In 1932 was Tuvan-Mongolian boundary established. Tuvan territory was expanded to South and South-East. The trans-Tannu-Ola range strip was added (approx. 23 and the Mugur-Aksy "peninsula" at SE (approx. 3 thous. These territories were never claimed as the Russian Empire parts. But at Western boundary Darkhad Valley and surrounding part of the upper Maly Yenisey river basin (approx. 20 were claimed as Mongolian. So area exchange resulting value for the Tuvan Peoples Republic was approx. 171
  • 4. But Tuvan officials after trans-Tannu-Ola strip and Mugur-Aksy zone annexing never stopped their claims for the Darkhad Valley zone (Prikhubsugul'ye in Russian). We can find these claims at the Tuvan coat of arms (1936 version) and 1935-1944 version banknotes.
    Tuvan Peoples Republic flag (1935-1944)
    .We can find at these official documents rough Tuva shape both with Mugur-Aksy tip and Darkhad zone. Rough shape of the Darkhad Zone was effected by the poor topographic maps quality for this region to determine a watershed line. So, Tuvan territory with Darkhad Zone claims would be approx. 191
  • 5. After Tuva annexing (1944) Soviet Union respected 1932 boundaries (without Darkhad Zone) before (I have Soviet 1941 map) and after Tuva annexing (1944), so Tuvan Autonomous Oblast area value reduced to the red line shown at my map. As this line is not a copy of former Uryankhay (at Uryankhay-Russian border line) the area precisely was 170,500 (measured at my map). I guess the 171,300 value is the map accuracy result.
red line - Tuva 1953 boundaries
green line - Tuva 2008 actual boundaries
  • 6. In 1958 was new Soviet-Mongolian boundary delimitation agreement signed. It was in fact the territory exchange formed actual Russian-Mongolian boundary.
  • 7. The Russian-Tuvan boundary was precised closer to the watershed limits, so actual Russian-Tuvan boundary is mostly orographic now. Area value derived from my map was approx. 168 thous. sq. km.

Any opinions?

Bogomolov.PL (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's one interesting and detailed research! I don't have any opinions to offer at the moment, but I am wondering what the best way to incorporate this into the article(s) would be and/or how to best reference the area figure (as well as which figure would be the best to use).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:35, January 20, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. 1907 map of Tannu is here, and one of the Darhad valley is here. Unfortunately, the digitalization does not seem to be good enough to read any of the place names. Yaan (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More common adjectival form (cf. Tuvan Autonomous Oblast, Tuvans, Tuvan language). See discussion above. — AjaxSmack 00:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Might we find a map that is at a bit smaller scale, so that we have a better since of where exactly this (rather obscure) place is? john k (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Something similar to this might be a good idea, to give a general idea about the location. Junuxx (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)